Posted on 05/11/2009 3:41:13 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
While much of the country’s attention is on other issues, a serious situation is developing in Pakistan that threatens to plunge us into another fruitless and bloody war. It is very frustrating to see that many who were so vehemently against the wars of the last administration have suddenly lost interest in foreign policy simply because we were promised change.
Those still paying attention know that nothing could be further from the truth. Very little has changed, except perhaps rhetoric, but what does that matter when the bombing missions are only getting deadlier? Rather than drawing down violent military interventions into the affairs of other countries, the new administration is escalating the foreign policy of the previous administration.
In Pakistan that entails the continuation and even escalation of military interventionism just across the border with Afghanistan. The targets are believed to be enclaves of Taliban militants, however, many innocent civilians have been caught in the deadly crossfire, severely damaging our image in the region. Many ordinary Afghanis and Pakistanis that never had cause to take up arms against us are being provided with motivation as family and friends are killed and maimed by our clumsy and indiscriminate bombs. Is it worth it for us to be involved in this way at such a high cost of blood, treasure and goodwill? Is there anything to be gained by this policy?
We are helping the Taliban and other enemies to actually gain numbers and strength, while driving them down from the mountains in the border regions deeper into Pakistan, where they have been making a menace of themselves. As our bombings follow them, beleaguered villagers have little choice but to leave their homes and join the swelling numbers of refugees or take up arms and join the fight against us.
Nonetheless, instead of recognizing the cascading unintended consequences of trying to deal with Pakistan’s problems, all signs in Washington point to further escalation. Both the House and Senate have newly introduced bills to triple foreign aid to Pakistan, from $500 million to $1.5 billion, with every indication that the leadership in Pakistan is taking advantage of the situation with the Taliban to milk more aid from the US taxpayer. We are broke. This is money we don’t have, and it is an insult to the American people to run up the national credit card for this type of military adventurism after many Americans thought they were voting for peace.
The bottom line is our involvement in Pakistan’s internal problems is not making us safer. In fact, we are adding to the numbers of our enemies and increasing the threats to our security here at home. We are inciting the very terrorism and extremism we are trying to stop. Every dollar we send, even if it is for humanitarian purposes, frees up resources to make war and potentially prop up unpopular leaders. The factions and politics of the Middle East are irrational and dangerous. We play with fire when we meddle in their affairs, and we isolate ourselves diplomatically by making more enemies than friends. We need to bring our troops home, end all foreign aid, and maintain a neutral stance on the world stage. It, in fact, is the only foreign policy we can afford right now, and it would gain us more friends and trading partners than our bombs ever could. Besides, that’s what the Constitution permits and our founders strongly advised.
" Everyone on this thread celebrating the demise of this (Bush/Pelosi/Reid/McCain illegal mexican amnesty bill) bill is pro amnesty, pro illegal immigration and a failed patriot. The bill contained fence provisions, deportation procedures, and other general enforcement provisons. This means that those celebrating the bill's failure support Amnesty."
There you go again, Rabs, soft-pedaling your thoughts again. I thought I told you once to just come out and tell folks how you REALLY feel. Don’t be afraid of hurt feelings. Just tell it like it is without all the high-caloric sugar coatings you’re so famous for! SOME of us are on diets here!
Bravo! Bravo!
But alas it is not enough to rescue ron Paul from his bad opinions on foreign policy.
In order to make his pathological view work he and his followers must imbue the us military with a coded form of malignant ignorance.
Our armed forces make our enemies in pauls view. This is of course wrong and . . .
Not very nice to our troops.
Our enemies have constituted themselves as a matter of their own will— nor ours. They have chosen their evil. We have not chosen it for them.
Iran north Korea Pakistan and many more are in practices of politics which directly threaten the united states. Perhaps in the old school of zell miller they shall challenge us to a duel. Or perhaps they will use a single nuclear warhead detonated over the Midwest. Perhaps their threat will be more unconventional than that of the Barbary pirates.
It is these rather obvious realities that require our good soldiers to be the scapegoats of Paul’s naievete. We have it coming with our imperialism.
But actually . . .
We don’t.
How I really feel, eh?
I think the U.N. is an utter waste of U.S. time and money. I also think that U.S. government aid to foreign countries is unnecessary.
I think the "war on drugs" is stupid. [Case in point: Prohibition.] However, I think we have a major security problem on our southern border--and guarding that border is a far more pressing priority than foreign adventures halfway around the world.
[Actually, come to think of it: the United States can only be at war with another sovereign power. Anything less is a criminal action. Wars on ideologies generally don't accomplish anything except less individual freedom and more Government power.]
Furthermore, I really don't give a damn what other countries do, so long as they do not commit acts of war against us. [And if they do, I think we should declare war on them and beat the hell out of them.]
I think that if the United States was really serious about dealing with the cohorts of the murderous bastards who killed over three thousand U.S. citizens and lawfully-present foreign nationals in New York, over the skies of Pennsylvania, and in Northern Virginia...then the first thing we would do is cut off their funding by tapping our own domestic energy supplies and buying additional energy from our Canadian neighbors.
I hope that's down-to-earth enough for ya, but you should remember that I learned all sorts of big words and fancy philosophical ideas here at Mr. Jefferson's University.
Understood, but this is a good start, big words and all. Carry on, young man, carry on!
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and then declared war on us before we ever did a thing to her.
If I were Truman, I'd have dropped the A Bombs, too!
Don't see how that argues against what I had said.
Are you suggesting al Qaeda did not carry out the 911 attacks?
If they did— which I think they did—they get bombed.
Agreed?
Of course not! What I am suggesting is that we enabled al Qaeda for years before 9/11, whether we knew what we were doing or not.
A list called The Golden Chain establishes that Al Qaeda began in Bosnia in 1988/1989. So what did we do? We fought on their side! And we imported thousands of Muslim "refugees" into Europe and the US, and threw open the Balkans to Islam. Then, to add insult to injury, we did it again in 1999 with the 1999 NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia -- bombing people who were our WWII Allies, in favor of Muslims who two years later would pull off 9/11 as a "thank you".
Meanwhile, we don't guard our borders properly and even after 9/11, we deliberately import even more ME Muslims.
We go to war in Iraq against a tin pot dictator who was running a secular government -- bad guy, no doubt, but one who was no threat to us and had no positive ties to al Qaeda. So what do we have now? An Islamic Constitution in Iraq, replacing the previously secular one. And once again, what do we do? Import even more Muslims into the US -- Iraqi, Afghan and Palestinian Muslim "refugees"!
So what I am saying is that you'd have to be some kind of truly stupid to chose this kind of strategy to "defend America"! Or -- something else is going on to defeat us -- bleeding us dry financially with wars and Obamanomic social programs so that other countries virtually own us, diluting the ideas of what an America even is anymore, softening our borders, diffusing our sovereignty so that an attack on some NATO country is "an attack on us all", Bush holding hands with the King of Saudi Arabia and Obama bowing to him, etc.
We are so far away from the Constitution and the principles that this country was founded on that if we don't get back to them soon, it will be all over! And picking a new country to start a war with is not the answer to winning this.
Anti Americanism is an insidious argument which must be fought everywhere— even in places one might not expect.
The grand pretending that holding the Saudi King’s hand is the same as bowing and kissing is part of the standard misdirection of the paleo cons.
There are connections to the Al Qaeda terrorists in Kosovo and Europe. It did not justify Milosevic’s strategy.
It’s not hard to believe we should bomb the Taliban. Its not hard to understand that this enemy has no particular regard for the porous borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. America is going to destroy these enemies.
It really does not matter whether Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Pat Buchannan, or anyone else really wants to or thinks that we can.
This enemy is profoundly irrational and does believe they can do unspeakable harm to anyone who opposes them. The reactionaries can pose and pretend that Mexico or Kosovo are the real focus, but back here in reality, the enemy is founded in regions around Afghanistan and Pakistan.
That is the topic of this thread so it is reasonable to challenge the premise that bombing Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives in those locations constitutes some bad strategy for fighting this known enemy. That is what Paul alleges. paul is wrong.
So what are you going to do? Kick their butt and bomb them until they love us? Or are you suggesting that any question or challenge to US foreign policy by me is "anti-American"? Explain please.
"The grand pretending that holding the Saudi King’s hand is the same as bowing and kissing is part of the standard misdirection of the paleo cons."
You can call me "a paleocon" and I can call you "a neocon" and where does it get us? Nowhere.
I didn't say that "holding hands" and "bowing" was the same thing -- I said that it led down the same road -- both had their shock value at the time and then became banal, until the next one came that went even further.
If you think that I am defending Barrack Obama, you are way off base.
There are connections to the Al Qaeda terrorists in Kosovo and Europe. It did not justify Milosevic’s strategy.
I am not defending Milosevic's strategy or defending Milosevic. I am saying that it was none of our business, because when we chose a side, we screwed ourselves. We had nothing to gain by getting involved and we lost much respect in Eastern Europe because we did what we did.
"It’s not hard to believe we should bomb the Taliban. Its not hard to understand that this enemy has no particular regard for the porous borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. America is going to destroy these enemies."...That is the topic of this thread so it is reasonable to challenge the premise that bombing Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives in those locations constitutes some bad strategy for fighting this known enemy.
I am not suggesting that we didn't have a right to attack those who attack us or attack the Taliban and al Qaeda operatives. I am suggesting that the whole thing was not thought through before we did it.
We've never contained them before we attacked. We let them spread out all over the map so that we get involved in more and more countries. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, maybe Iran, at what point do we stop? Where is the end? And what's the objective in each place? What really does "winning" look like in these places?
And what does "winning" look like here, as we bankrupt ourselves and destroy the Constitutional principles that define our country, in the process? This was not thought through before we got involved and it's catching up to us.
This enemy is profoundly irrational and does believe they can do unspeakable harm to anyone who opposes them
Believe me, you don't have to tell me what aggressive Islam looks like -- my ancestors fought it for centuries. I was the one that said that radical Islam was on the move West twenty years ago, when people looked at me like I was a nutcase -- until 9/11.
Maybe THIS is part of what Dr. Paul is talking about:
(Received via email today)
DoDBuzz.com
May 11, 2009
Drones Hardly Ever Kill Bad Guys
By Greg Grant
The foreign policy community’s favorite counterinsurgency adviser, or at least their favorite Australian one, David Kilcullen, told lawmakers last week that the drone strikes targeting Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Pakistan are creating enemies at a far faster rate than its killing them. According to statistics he provided, the success rate of the drone bombing campaign is extremely low: just 2 percent of bombs dropped have hit targeted militants. The other 98 percent? Those killed noncombatant Pakistani civilians, he said.
Since the drone strikes began in earnest in 2006, the U.S. has killed 14 mid-level Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. In the same time frame, the strikes have killed 700 Pakistani civilians, Kilcullen said May 7, speaking before the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats. The strikes themselves are not particularly unpopular in the tribal areas, the FATA, that border Afghanistan, as many of the people there are weary of the militants operating in their midst. Where the strikes are extremely unpopular, he said, is in the more populated areas of Punjab and Sind, areas where there has been a big jump in militancy since the bombing campaign began.
“Right now our biggest problem is not the [extremist] networks in the FATA, but the fact that Pakistan may collapse if this political instability continues.” The U.S. should stop the bombing campaign against the Pakistani Taliban and instead return to a narrower target set aimed only at Al Qaeda operatives, Kilcullen said, as the bombing campaign has simply become too counterproductive. The Taliban run a very effective “information operations” that broadcasts the death toll from U.S. strikes to feed a rising tide of popular anger against the U.S. and western involvement in Pakistan, he said.
The issue of civilian casualties caused by U.S. bombing is not simply a humanitarian matter, but is a major factor influencing the political and ideological battles being waged in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, says CSIS’s Anthony Cordesman in an email. “Civilian casualty estimates have effectively become an extension of war by other means,” he says. “Tactics that physically defeat elements of the enemy and lose the population lose the war.”
Cordesman says the U.S. can’t bomb its way to victory in Pakistan. The U.S. is also too unpopular to put significant numbers of troops there. He says Pakistan will either succeed or fail against the Taliban based on whether it can adopt some version of the “clear, hold and build” counterinsurgency strategy the U.S. applied in Iraq, and is trying to apply in Afghanistan, versus “having the Pakistani Army smash its way into Swat and leave, which has been the high point of Pakistani warfighting to date.”
I think your rebuttals are highly persuasive and reasonable.
I don’t Completely agree but the differences are not so great that I would continue to berate your arguments.
I think your arguments are productive.
It’s a pleasure discussing this with you, Lone Star.
Maybe one day, I’ll be lucky enough to be a Texan, too!
I spent many years in Ohio but I must admit Texas is quite nice.
It’s been a pleasure discussing this with you as well.
Yes, IMO that was a spectacularly lame argument. However, another argument lonestar67 made on that thread is closer to the truth:
Post #609: There are no prospects for increased border enforcement.
Indeed, the will of the US public notwithstanding, neither Republican not Dem POTUSes have any interest whatsoever in real immigration enforcement, and most of congress is no better. For example, Charlie Crist, running for senate now, was for the 2006 amnesty bill.
lonestar67's argument, as I understand it, was that the Bush/McCain/Kennedy amnesty was the "best deal" we would ever get. IMO, the trouble with that is that amnesty leads to not only more illegal aliens in the future, but also tens of millions of new leftist voters. That is, this "best deal" would be like George Washington at Valley Forge, not seeing any victory on the horizon, surrendering to King George to get the "best deal."
Even though "our" government may eventually force amnesty down our throats, I believe that surrender on amnesty would also be disastrous and a stain on our honor.
I question where and how he compiled these numbers. The article doesn’t say.
I don’t disagree that strikes often kill civilians, but the fact of the matter is that AQ and Taliban hide amongst civilians. And he is correct that you can’t simply kill your way out of an insurgency.
What I find disagreeable about RP is his use of language in this matter. Its one thing to be rationally critical, it’s another to be derogatory. RP’s language is what is clumsy.
His language may be clumsy, as you say, but one thing I am sure of is that Ron Paul is in no way disrespectful of the military. And unlike Obambi, he DID serve in the Air force and ANG as a flight surgeon.
I think what the person in the piece I posted was talking about is the unmanned aerial vehicles which do NOT have a pilot in the cockpit and some are controlled from half a world away. A lot of folks want to make a case for eliminating pilots, but you need that judgment RIGHT THERE to avoid the sort of strikes in the post. I do not have a link to source material but DoDBuzz.com might have something.
I am having a little trouble filtering the sarcasm on this post but I think there are some essentially correct summations of my argument.
I actually do not begrudge strong argument for border enforcement. In fact, I think such arguments have had productive effects— one of my key criteria.
I think the pardoning of the border agents is an example. I think the provisions for wall building— minor as they were and the increased enforcement and deportations were all side effects of aggressive public sphere arguments for border enforcement. That is good and it does seem that election field is wide open to whatever candidates people want to propose.
Ironically, I do think there are strong hispanic voices of those who have arrived legally through proper procedures who object strongly to illegal immigration. utilizing these voices more would rapidly improve the results and prevent the obvious demise of hispanic votes among Republicans.
I also think creative application of immigrant soldiers would also help the cause. We have a significant number of non citizen soldiers who fight for America who might still argue against illegal immigration. They may ironically be involved in border enforcement problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am not trying to unfairly rain on people’s parades. I just don’t want counter productive arguments.
I do have a more positive view of immigration [should be legal] than most people but I do think laws should be followed.
It would never happen but I have also fantasized about trading people— like ten million crazy liberals for ten million non- citizen people who really love America. They are out there.
If Obama and his gang try to push amnesty, I think we can all oppose that, and almost everything else they are trying to do, together. I want more conservatives to be elected in 2010.
I am meeting with a group of
"Austin Tech Republicans"
on Thursday (11:30AM, northwest Austin). If you are in the area, the above link tells where.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.